Walking Forum

Main Boards => General Walking Discussion => Topic started by: barewirewalker on 09:46:21, 22/09/20

Title: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:46:21, 22/09/20
Did our ancestors Trespass when they created the footpath network we walk today?

(https://i.ibb.co/HDsZDLf/Map-fp-anom1.png)


Am I right in thinking, 'If we look at how our rights of way came into being, we might learn how to refute some of those assumptions used by those opposed to opening up our countryside'.
Is the footpath from Sidnal N to Cross House S an anomaly or is there a logical, historical explanation?


Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Eyelet on 10:36:46, 22/09/20
What specific assumptions are you referring to?


That footpath does look unusual. Have you looked at the area on the earlier sequence of OS mapping such as that available online on the National Library of Scotland website? The 25 inch mapping might give some insight into whether the footpath came before the road.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:02:09, 22/09/20
What specific assumptions are you referring to?
The CLA explanations show a general weakness in reasoning and these crop up often in conversation with landowners, farmers and also in publications. Before I explain my interpretation, which I have used before on the forum, I would like to find if there other thoughts about this sort of anomaly, which is usually a direct transfer from the older editions of OS surveys going back to the 1880 edition.
This particular location seems to add more to my reasoning, so before I explain it, I would be very interested to hear other thoughts.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 13:36:54, 22/09/20
I'm sorry, I do not see what point you are making. The implication from the map is there is a PROW immediately to the W of and parallel to the lane.  This is not born out by GoogleEarth - there is no southern access to the path in the form of a gate or stile and there are no finger post at either end.  The implication therefore is that in reality the lane and the path share a common track and this yet another piece of Definitive Map nonsense where somebody has drawn a line on a map without reference to reality.  If I had a fiver for every time I have found the printed PROW departed from reality I could be kept in beer for a lifetime, it happened 4 times in the space of a couple of miles yesterday when I was walking part of the 2 Moors Way.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 15:06:46, 22/09/20
So Ninthace comes with the explanation that seem's to be the usual, but is there another? Were the OS surveyors so innaccurate that they did not place some of these footpaths in exactly the right place. Some anomalies do occur because the 1950's compilers of the Definitive Map were untrained, working to non existent protocols and influenced by corrupted ideas.
At the northern end there is clear access, as the RoW is marked exactly where there is a field gate and it is the gate that gives the full field margin, at the southern end there are railings in the hedge to show where there has been a weakness in an otherwise strong line of Hawthorne hedge. Powys CC did not start putting up walk furniture until very recently. I would not expect them to be as wasteful as to follow a countrylane with an alternative way.


But this sort of anomaly is rather consistent. Here is another one;(https://i.ibb.co/BCJ6gDk/P-on-wye-OS25k.png)
The above example looks to be fairly precisely plotted and not the result of a tracing paper layer slipping a couple of mms. this one has not been put on the DM and made a RoW, I expect the Hereford CC were rather more selective.
If you look at the field levels on GE it is fairly clear that they are above the level of the road and were they more so before tarmacadam.


 
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 16:42:57, 22/09/20
I cannot speak for the accuracy of the surveyors but the map makers are a bit liberal with reality.  A couple examples just from yesterday.
The red trace in the image below is from my gps which is pretty reliable.  Compare the trace with the path shown. The path from the start, is shown running along inside the edge of the wood, which is correct and my trace shows where the line of the path actually is, which means boundary of the wood is wrong.  The path emegres from the wood around the second green diamond.  It then drops left back into the woodland but leaves again immediately after crossing the stream, as per the trace, rather than continuing in the wood as the OS would have it.(https://i.ibb.co/gFvqyCv/2020-09-22-3.png) (https://ibb.co/jZV0hFV)

In the second example, the PROW path rejoins the road where my trace shows it does, not where the OS says it does, and there is a gate in a wall to prove it.(https://i.ibb.co/C7yVSZg/2020-09-22-4.png) (https://ibb.co/Phy1VnK)

I had a look on GoogleEarth at your path.  While there is a line of gates parallel to the road there is no weakness in the hedge at the S end.  The old railings buried in the hedge are in the wrong place, i.e. on the wrong road to be an overgrown exit and why on earth would you have a footpath parallel to a perfectly good lane.  Mayhap the lane was once a trackway that served as a footpath before it was metalled.  I prefer the clerical error theory, perhaps it was plotted in the wrong place and assumed to be parallel route.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 17:18:11, 22/09/20
I agree with you over the variation of right of way with the side of hedge it should be on at Ashcombe Plantation could be born out by your interpretation. For nearly a mile of Right of way to be the wrong side of a hedge could be explained by the lane not being suitable to pedestrian traffic, a choice of sides of the lane in  the first map the west looks the drier ground, pre 1960's cattle were driven to market. The entire road space from hedge to hedge is cut up by driven cattle not helped by sheep. go further back Pre WW1 this would be on many unmetalled roads. Even the better off country people could not afford totally waterproof footwear, women would go to market in long dresses.

I suggest that it may have been force of public opinion that took churchgoers or market day pedestrian to choose routes that were different to the livestock routes.

Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Eyelet on 19:36:38, 22/09/20



One ought to be able to consult the Ordnance Surveyors Drawings 1789 - c1840 to see if they can add anything to this. See: https://www.bl.uk/images/maps/osdindex.jpg (https://www.bl.uk/images/maps/osdindex.jpg)


The relevant sheet seems to be 200W but unfortunately I cannot find it on the British Library website.


The path is shown adjacent to the lane in the C19 1-25 inch mapping. There seem to be lots of cases of FPs paralleling the road in this vicinity on this mapping, but some of them are not shown on the modern mapping. See: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=16&lat=52.55577&lon=-3.09291&layers=10&right=168 (https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=16&lat=52.55577&lon=-3.09291&layers=10&right=168)


I like the explanation that the lane was so bad underfoot due to animal traffic that a footpath developed alongside it - I can think of a few farm tracks round our way where this is happening right now!   
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:06:20, 23/09/20
Thanks Eyelet that link to pre 1880 surveys is news to me, My theory is based on experience I have driven cattle many miles along both main roads and lanes. I have argued with landowners, who cannot be turned in their ideas that country people walked many miles off road to get to market, and that they stuck to the accepted roads of today.

Also thanks to Ninthace, he is right to test my ideas and there are many examples that indicate more update explanations. He has made me think more carefully about the Cross House junction exit of the way. The railings are the key and it is highly probable than an Oak tree grew at that junction, they were medieval way markers. Hedges cannot flourish under the canopy of a large tree and railing over a place for the pedestrian to penetrate a boundary hedge.

The reason I suggest that 'they' might have trespassed, is this alternative way goes through at least 2 holdings. Sidnal and Caerprior, if so this leads to speculation about the historical importance of cattle movement in this area, if this is the reason for this type of anomaly.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Eyelet on 09:41:46, 23/09/20
You’re welcome. The 1883 25 inch map does show a tree at the Cross House junction but it is on the opposite corner.


See:https://maps.nls.uk/view/121151672 (https://maps.nls.uk/view/121151672)


BTW are you a fan of the late Oliver Rackham and all his works?
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 10:25:05, 23/09/20
Looking at that map, it seems there was a path, probably the then equivalent of a pavement, to allow people to walk beside the track.  The path seems to continue round to the W too but that has disappeared in the modern era. It seems to have been described as a 4ft wide strip if you follow the lane to the N.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Eyelet on 12:21:06, 23/09/20
I think that the "pavement" concept is a likely explanation. In field 2491 (the field in which the footpath ends to the N) the map shows where the path deviates west around a patch of furze, which is exactly what you would do on the ground. This suggests it wasn't a clerical error.


https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=18&lat=52.55886&lon=-3.09114&layers=10&right=168 (https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=18&lat=52.55886&lon=-3.09114&layers=10&right=168)


The meaning of 4ft. R.H. in depicting boundaries on the 25 inch sheets is given here: https://maps.nls.uk/view/128076891 (https://maps.nls.uk/view/128076891) and I think it relates to the resolution of drawing in a boundary relative to the linear feature it runs along.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:13:31, 23/09/20
Not read any Oliver Rackham, will keep an eye out for his books SH on line. My observations are based on personal observation. Thanks for the link to that map, I have copied many of the early series of OS map but that one has escaped me. This particular example is a recent discovery. I was walking Roundton Hill above Churchstoke a couple of weeks ago and these anomalies caught my eye as I was debriefing myself.

Interesting that the same 'Pavement' effect as referred to by Ninthace is dupicated on the lane E2W passing Rhiston, if like Ninthace any have taken a GE trip along this lane an unusual number of Scot's Pine surround that holding. If this was a sign for overnight cattle keep for a drovers way it might account for the heavy traffic that would necessitate the need for alternative pedestrian ways where the roads become impassable channels of mud. There are other similar anomalies going back to where Offa's Dyke crosses that lane beyond Gwarthlow. (https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=324730&y=295226&z=0&sv=52.54966,+-3.11148&st=7&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf)

If there were a Drover's Ways approaching from the west this would be a southern line to aim for as the Marrington Dingle, (https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=327317&y=296543&z=115&sv=327317,296543&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=636&ax=327317&ay=296543&lm=0) in the lea of Corndon and Roundton Hill would be a barrier for Driven cattle. As the medieval cattle droves dwindled, the market towns of Bishop's Castle and Craven Arms would provide target destinations. Also Montgomery, Welshpool and Newtown markets would be collecting grounds for mountain and hill bred store stock to be bought by dealers to be driven east to lowland fattening customers at midland markets.

It is noticeable that all these'over the hedge paths' (https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=324730&y=295226&z=0&sv=52.54966,+-3.11148&st=7&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf) are on sloping ground, they are are going through heavy clay country (fields not free draining). So when a track, lane or road drops below that of the surrounding fields it becomes a water course.

These OTH pavements occur over a distance that suggests that they are common to different farm holdings and probably beyond the bounds of single estates, which suggest that they have developed by common need as opposed to by permission of landowners. I was talking to a farming friend, whose family bought their farm off the estate they tenanted it off. There was a clause in the old tenancy agreement instructing the tenant not to allow the development of rights of way. Which came first public need or the right of the landowner.

Mud and water may have been the reason to drive the pedestrian of yesteryear into the field margins, speeding traffic in it's many shapes and sizes is surely the modern day equivalent.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Eyelet on 13:27:09, 23/09/20

This all sounds plausible.

I recommend starting with OR's "History of the Countryside": https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/history-countryside/author/oliver-rackham/ (https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/history-countryside/author/oliver-rackham/)


445 pages for £3.24 - "It is full of answers to questions that others have not had the wit to ask." The Economist.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 17:46:44, 23/09/20
This all sounds plausible.

I recommend starting with OR's "History of the Countryside": https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/history-countryside/author/oliver-rackham/ (https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/history-countryside/author/oliver-rackham/)


445 pages for £3.24 - "It is full of answers to questions that others have not had the wit to ask." The Economist.
thanks I have an order to make with abebooks I shall tack that one on to it.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:13:24, 24/09/20
(https://i.ibb.co/kXQBk8Z/Xhouse-south.png)
We see in the 1882 map south of Cross House a similar offset pavement, today's track seems to have been part of the road network. There is also an offset pavement but in today's OS mapping it is a right of way that coincides with the line of the track. The RoW leaves the track where the footpath starts and this gives 2/3 mile cross field footpath into Churchstoke.
In my mind this backs up the separation of pedestrian traffic from following the roads because livestock traffic made the roads impassable for those travelling on foot.
If we adopt this line of thought, it would indicate that the flow of people traveling to Churchstoke started way beyond Sidnal and points on other roads. A direct contradiction of the assumptions churned out in many articles about footpaths. The right of way shown has made it onto the Definitive Map. How may other Offset Pavements are there that might be showing how Strength of Way (historical numbers of people using them) indicate a lostway.

This example also shows that the pavement effect can be removed quite some distance from the muddy road it is avoiding.
(https://i.ibb.co/k0M0z2w/map-Cstoke.png)
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:57:56, 27/09/20
A big thankyou to Ninthace and Eyelet for there interest in this topic. Their contributions have been most stimulating. The anomaly of the slipped or misplaced RoW, seems to to be more an effect of historical use and perhaps deserves a name such as the 'Offset Pavement Effect'.

Yesterday we put this very act of trespass into practice, we were walking with friends, who prefer to walk in shoes, nearly all the route was dry but after walking across an open field and crossing by a stile into a section of green lane, we were confronted with a sunken section of the lane flooded right across the lane. Fortunately due to many years of neglectful hedge management, the recently machine mutilated hedge was so porous with weed species that we were able to climb up the the field margin adjacent and continue our walk with dry feet.   ;D

I have noticed another example of the 'Offset Pavement Effect'. Probably so minimal that it would not have seemed relevant had I not been giving this idea some thought.
(https://i.ibb.co/GCdQbKz/cardington-offset-P.png)The footpath that starts by the telephone kiosk runs parallel the lane, starting near St Jame's Well. Is this merely a shortcut from the farms at Willstone to Cardington or is the continuation by grey lane designated an ORPA significant? If you care to copy and past these coordinates 52.55218, -2.73651 into Google Earth there is a rather damp picture of the lane in Street View.


Anyone wanting to explore further click here (https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=349949&y=295165&z=106&sv=349949,295165&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=576&ax=349949&ay=295165&lm=0) it is possible trace back, the end of the track continues along a number of footpaths and bridleways towards a market town.
So which was the greater destination the village pub or the market town, which is on one of the major roads for coaching traffic linking the county town of Shropshire to that of Herefordshire?
Is it coincidence that this area of between the Hope Bowdler Hills and Caradoc under Battle Rock is where I first read, on a county council information board of the connection between Scot's Pines and Drover's ways? Yet it was a Rights of way officer who told me that this anomaly is due to the inaccurate reconciliation between old and new mapping.


Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 13:39:35, 27/09/20
Looking at all those footpaths in that picture that run in straight lines while ignoring field boundaries and the underlying topography, without local knowledge, I would be taking the GoogleEarth and other sources of aerial views to check they reaaly existed before I planned a walk along them. 
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:59:25, 27/09/20
I am not suggesting that any one should walk along them, more that people should question the reason why they are there, ask if they tell us more about the routes they once were.
To understand the history of our access network is to strengthen our ability to preserve it and allow it to grow with today's needs and shape it for future generations.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 14:10:14, 27/09/20
I am not suggesting that any one should walk along them, more that people should question the reason why they are there, ask if they tell us more about the routes they once were.
To understand the history of our access network is to strengthen our ability to preserve it and allow it to grow with today's needs and shape it for future generations.
I'm sure there is a flaw in that argument somewhere.  If you don't intend they should be used, then they are just an interesting historical footnote.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Mel on 14:27:46, 27/09/20
Looking closely at some of those RoWs, I’m not seeing a grey dashed line underneath some of them which tells me that, although a right of way from point A to point B exists, it may be different on the ground, if there at all. I see this as a subtle kind of open access land  ;)


Useful for working out where gates/stiles may be though.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 15:13:55, 27/09/20
But is the greater flaw in the arguments of those who would restrict access in generalizing that the access network is made up from shortcuts of yesteryear and old ways to work.

By tracing grey paths, rights of way and lanes, using these offset pavements as indications of strength of way it is possible to see far more purposeful routes to significant destinations. This method reveals lostways, in a topic here (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=39284.msg560126#msg560126) there is a mile of lostway that is probably a parallel route distant from the B5062 into Shrewsbury. Could this route have shared a common purpose with the offset pavement effect?


It could it be part of a 50 mile way across Shropshire, joining Cannock Chase to the Breiddens or the Tanant Valley.


Mel is right very useful for locating gates. Often essential for getting in or out of unforgiving boundaries.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: shortwalker on 16:12:42, 27/09/20
Did our ancestors Trespass when they created the footpath network we walk today?

(https://i.ibb.co/HDsZDLf/Map-fp-anom1.png)


Am I right in thinking, 'If we look at how our rights of way came into being, we might learn how to refute some of those assumptions used by those opposed to opening up our countryside'.
Is the footpath from Sidnal N to Cross House S an anomaly or is there a logical, historical explanation?


The other option is you could be looking at the map and drawing conclusions that support your view.


Don't get me wrong, I am all for "right to roam" but maybe I am am not so evangelical about it.



Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 16:14:44, 27/09/20
While acknowledging their origins, I see them now as a recreational resource to be enjoyed rather than lost.  I use them to construct routes of my own devising, usually circular in nature and ideally starting and finishing close to a hostelry.  In our part of the world, some of them have been strung together to make longer distance paths such as the Tarka Trail, the Devonshire Heartland Way, the Exe Valley Way and the Ridge and Valley walk.  They can give a walk a purpose but, like the Pennine Way, the Coast to Coast or the Two Moors Way, they are artificial tourist trails rather than ancient long lost routes.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 17:53:19, 27/09/20

The other option is you could be looking at the map and drawing conclusions that support your view.

That is exactly what the CLA's 2012 Policy on access was. They collected poorly researched examples, backed up with anecdotal examples from there own membership that has a history of objection and came up with a policy. As I have repeatedly tried to point out the main author and editor in chiefs owns the land in which the end of the Northern section of Offas's Dyke is 10 miles away from the Walk of it's name. No reference to the importance of historical features being made accessible to the public were hinted at in that policy.

While acknowledging their origins, I see them now as a recreational resource to be enjoyed rather than lost.  I use them to construct routes of my own devising, usually circular in nature and ideally starting and finishing close to a hostelry.   They can give a walk a purpose but, like the Pennine Way, the Coast to Coast or the Two Moors Way, they are artificial tourist trails rather than ancient long lost routes.

There is a sightline out of Central Wales that is centered on the Bromlow Callow, a circular coppice of Scot's Pine on a knoll. It is visible all over Shropshire and appears the same from all angles, was this a guiding beacon for Drovers as you look east from there the next prominent feature is the Wrekin to approach the Wrekin the River Severn crossing is at Cressage. There are several miles of lostway along this sightline.

If you were to suppose that this was an old drover's way out of Wales few would walk it, but reverse it, it immediately creates a corridor of pure countryside from the midlands to the Welsh coast. All I am doing is trying to add to a language we all talk about the ways we might want to walk, hardly evangelism.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: pleb on 23:21:03, 27/09/20
Nevermind trespass. Those rotating flails slaughter the poor hedges.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:23:07, 28/09/20
Nevermind trespass. Those rotating flails slaughter the poor hedges.
O0 they made it easy for us to climb through the hedge so that we could trespass. Just payback for all those chopped off fingerposts that has had me guessing about where to go over the years.  :D
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:58:33, 29/09/20

The other option is you could be looking at the map and drawing conclusions that support your view.

I am putting a lot of thought into this observation and am extending the search to look beyond the immediate area of Chirbury / Churchstoke. I have found several other examples in the past that seem to backup this theory.
The connection with drover's ways may be tenuous but the market day route does seem to 'hold water' here'


The reason I spend the time doing this is the lack of intelligent reasoning in the landowners arguments that appear in the press. A pre-2010 the CLA spoke person on access wrote words to the effect, to achieve an understanding on access landowners would have to "Give away more than they took". This phrase was repeated by the President of the CLA, who published their current policy on access, when he was vice president. Such thinking disappeared in the actual policy document. Around that time there was a change in the holder of that position. A lawyer became the official spokesperson.

My guess is the previous spoke person was a Land Agent. Someone with this background would have more knowledge of the working of the countryside especially if he was a person of retirement age. He would be someone, who was around at the time the Definitive Map was compiled.

It is an instinct to lose evidence if it runs counter to opinions in today's corporate ethos, a practice that comes close to the legal profession. There was a strong ethic of honesty in the agricultural professions post war and up to the time I left in the late 1970's. It was the job of a land agent to keep hereditary landowners on the straight and narrow, a difficult task considering their breeding.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:07:35, 03/10/20
I'm sorry, I do not see what point you are making. The implication from the map is there is a PROW immediately to the W of and parallel to the lane.  This is not born out by GoogleEarth - there is no southern access to the path in the form of a gate or stile and there are no finger post at either end.  The implication therefore is that in reality the lane and the path share a common track and this yet another piece of Definitive Map nonsense where somebody has drawn a line on a map without reference to reality.
Another look at the 1882 map and I see a similar offset path on the north side of the lane, designate footpath if followed back north of Rhiston. Had this anomaly been printed into today's OS 1:25k map, we might see a junction in these 2 paths that suggest an opening in the hedge opposite the cottage at Cross House, where an inspection on Google Earth will show a set of old wooden fencing set in the weak part of the Hawthorne hedge.

This leads me to think that the lane, now an overgrown track, that forms the cross roads at Cross House was the continuation of the way to Churchstoke. Why walk from Rhiston to Cross House in order to get to Churchstoke? Perhaps it was better for pedestrians to walk this way because there was livestock being driven from the north west along this road in. (and other herds and flocks coming from the west along the A489)


The indication of Historic strength of way is perhaps a way of proving the importance of lostways. In this instance there may be more signs of that than obvious improvements to the footpath network. There are places where this phenomena appears where there is clear need for the recovery of lostways to actually make an area accessible.


Was this historic strength of way a sign of social need being more powerful than the individual occupier of our countryside? Last night Mrs BWW was watching a program about restoring an old historic barn for domestic accommodation. I heard the Question; 'What makes it Historic? What makes it unique?'. Perhaps this also applies to the footpaths we walk on.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:00:42, 04/10/20
(https://i.ibb.co/R68XCPf/GE32b-ghosts.png)
When men drove cattle to market along the roads, how did ladies get there to sell their produce.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:06:13, 07/10/20
Some more pictorial thoughts on the Offset Pavement phenomena;Just to return to the beginning of the Offset RoW that leads up the hedgerow north.(https://i.ibb.co/09q2Zdy/lady-mud-GE2.png)
Perhaps the lady in this image may ask, "which way would you go, if you were me".
I wonder if we take modern roads for granted, do 'the snapshots in time' that the 1880 OS surveys give us more insight into how generations before us used roads.
(https://i.ibb.co/NCzwhFM/muddy-road1.jpg)
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: shortwalker on 13:30:56, 07/10/20
Maybe, some of your offset ROW, may come from the accuracy of the actual mapping, or stem from those "horrible" landowners who for their own reasons wanted the ROW moved.


How many times do we go for walk and see a long abandoned house etc in the middle of a field/more etc, with no ROW nearby and no visible paths or roads nearby. It is just how these things evolve. 
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:59:18, 08/10/20
Just the reason a RoW Officer gave me when I first questioned an example at Kynaston, Shropshire. It seemed unnecessary to have to put up walk furniture in 3 or 4 fields that ran parallel to a farm track, quite dry as it was made up with stone to the field levels with a ditch alongside. Though I now believe more strongly that it would have been a sunken track that was part of a populous route with a distant objective of some social importance, after finding other examples.
Preston on Wye, may only show today as 'grey dots', but it purpose in 1880 was as part of a continuous way, tend to agrees with the conformation of the ground.
An series of examples near Cardeston, Shropshire seem to fit the similar pattern of being on the line of a route. It would be interesting to see there are more in other localities.

The Hereford example I came across when I was looking at the area Harry Cotterrel lives in, as president of the CLA when they published their policy on Public access I thought he might have learnt something from his local geography. Nearly everything about access in that area runs contrary to the reasoning behind his policies.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:49:21, 19/10/20
I had hopes that there might be other examples of this anomaly. I am still convinced that the 1880 Cartography is represents a footpath in a field running parallel to the road. If so, the question, "Did our ancestors trespass to put it there" surely arises and in that case, where this has made it onto the Definitive Map the it has become a Right of Way.

The original act, if the road was unsuitable for a person on foot, was a justifiable trespass, (as the path was mapped) so at what point does this become an expression of a reasonable or natural right?

A more frequent example is the 'shortcut' across the corner of a field. Just a shortcut to reduce the distance the bend in a road make? Not if it cuts out a road junction, this is part of a route with a different destination and if we find another footpath across fields this may reveal another destination. How far can you follow a series of seeming shortcuts to find the true destination all the shortcuts add up to.

I followed such a series of shortcuts on early OS maps for some miles and came to a request stop on a long disused railway line. This line bisected an area of 11 square miles devoid of Slow Ways, to coin a phrase from a recent topic (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=41079.0). Could there be any purpose to several miles of shortcuts to a long deserted rail stop on today's Slow Ways Map?

Add to this another similar route extending from the same rail stop from the other side of the line. Should I call this the Double Destination Factor? The purpose of the two routes may have disappeared over the years but the combined ways has value with the new needs of today's Slow Ways. In this instance the combined ways, 5 miles as the crow flies, join an area fertile in Slow Ways to a rare non urban bridge crossing  a major river for at least 5 miles either way up or down stream.

Were the original pathways to the rail line created by justifiable trespass, would it be justifiable trespass today to walk 5 miles across a blank in our Slow Way Map that could create a significant strategic way?
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 11:44:04, 19/10/20
I suppose the question is did the pathways grow up to get to the stop or was the stop put there because a path crossed the line.  Landowners often insisted on halts being built as a condition for allowing the line to cross their land.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:24:53, 19/10/20
Landowners also like us to assume that they were the final arbiters of the right to cross or access their land. This country is unique in having large scale mapping 150 years old and possible 200 years. Can we learn something from these maps, is there evidence that community need was a factor, today's property owners would prefer us to assume that they have inherited the right of final arbitration.


I think the term for this type of station was a Signal Stop. Country stations were also important for the transport of milk into the towns and cities, even 200 years ago there were Yeoman farmers, who had freehold going back to Saxon times. Can't imagine the local Lord of the manor being able to stop some of those guys from delivering their milk to a rail line.
 
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 12:36:20, 19/10/20
I don't think you quite addressed the issue.  Was the stop there because the path crossed the line or did the path grow up to get to the stop?
I think your landowner bias is blinding you to other possibilities.  In those days. it would have been in the landowner's interest to allow the people who worked the land and lived nearby to have access to a stop and therefore could have have proposed the stop in the first place.  In the past, many estates took the welfare and prosperity of their tenants and neighbours seriously.  There was no welfare state, the local landowner often assumed this role.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 14:48:49, 19/10/20
I don't think you quite addressed the issue.  Was the stop there because the path crossed the line or did the path grow up to get to the stop?
I think your landowner bias is blinding you to other possibilities.  In those days. it would have been in the landowner's interest to allow the people who worked the land and lived nearby to have access to a stop and therefore could have have proposed the stop in the first place.  In the past, many estates took the welfare and prosperity of their tenants and neighbours seriously.  There was no welfare state, the local landowner often assumed this role.
Valid point. The offset pavement and the shortcut across a field both point to the pedestrian initiating the route, I agree that the landowner in the past was interesting in local welfare to the extent that the ways were tolerated and for this reason they got put on the OS surveys. The CLA policy today is to deny the creation of any new RoW, to the extent that a new way being formed, for instance along a field margin, where a busy road now occupies the full width hedge to hedge, would soon have barbed wire across the tops of gates and fences. It is this type of extension to the Slow Way map that would be the modern day equivalent of the offset pavement of avoiding roads cut up by cattle being driven to market.

The point I am trying to make with the example of the station is several ways came into this sort of historic destination, joined together they create routes that have a new use. As with the canals and railways that created artificial barriers across the countryside, motorways do that today. Should today's walker emulate his ancestors and use those service bridges etc. to add to Slow Ways and would the landowner of today see this as a reasonable expression of social need and tolerate it?
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 15:48:06, 19/10/20
<<snip>>The point I am trying to make with the example of the station is several ways came into this sort of historic destination, joined together they create routes that have a new use. As with the canals and railways that created artificial barriers across the countryside, motorways do that today. Should today's walker emulate his ancestors and use those service bridges etc. to add to Slow Ways and would the landowner of today see this as a reasonable expression of social need and tolerate it?
To be fair, quite a few I have met might agree to it especially if liability and maintenance issues were sorted out (this was the sort of thing I was hinting at in my Slow Maps posts)


As examples:
The local charity I have the honour to chair is planning to put a table and benches in the corner of a wood by the Two Moors Way. The wood is owned by the Woodland Trust and they have been happy to let us do it.  It is a big bit of kit to shift and the owner of the land we will have to cross to get it there is also quite agreeable to us driving across several fields with a vehicle and trailer to get it there, even though it will involve crop damage and encourage people to picnic in a corner of their field.  In fact, during the Covid pandemic the landowner has been happy to let people picnic in their field and to paddle in the stream that runs by it.
Another local landowner is not only improving the existing ROW through a wood well known for its bluebells. but is also constructing additional paths through the wood and putting bridges in across a stream to improve access.
If you ever walk the PW, when you get to God's Bridge, the landowner just to the E has put in paths by the River Greta and through other parts of their land.
Just some that I know of.  Landowners are not all bad and I suspect quite a few do not even belong to the CLA.
 
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 16:34:00, 19/10/20
Unfortunately a few decent landowners does not make good whole. The Duke of Devonshire apologized for the harm his ancestors did in shutting off the Pennines from it's surrounding towns and cities. Perhaps the CLA should own up to the Corruption of the Definitive Map and apologise to the country on behalf of the former members.

They stick to the line that Lostways are irrelevant, yet the map does not bear this out. Their President who wrote their policy on access and can look out of the front window of Garnon's Hall and see where a Roman Road meets the southern end of the North section of Offa's Dyke and not suggest that a landowner should admit they owe the country access to important bits of our history.


Re-instating the lost ways of Shropshire could show the way to add 500 miles or more to useful cross country routes. Valuable infrastructure such as bridges fail to have there full potential used because the ways to them are incomplete.


Back to the topic; Did our ancestors actually trespass when they cut across that field to avoid some mud or take new way to market. If so did they set precedent  that we should exploit today as ever wider tractors and trailors flatten us against the road edges and increasing numbers of white van drivers speed to the further reaches of rural suburbia.


Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Andies on 17:07:43, 19/10/20
I think the answer to BWW's question may be in the law of trespass, which requires there to have been some damage.
If there was none I suspect in times of old before the definitive map and the concept of right of way that we have today there was an acceptance that people were able to take a sensible route to their destination if only to avoid some mud.
As I have stated before I will trespass if I feel it appropriate, such as avoiding a dangerous road by walking on an adjacent headland. Interestingly I did this a few years ago and was challenged by the farmers wife who after asking if she could help me, my declining, then accused me of trespassing. I explained my reasons for walking on the edge of the setaside field, expressed my hope that I hadn't caused any damage, and after she had confirmed that she didn't want to be knocked down on the narrow but busy road, I went on my way.
The said farmer was ironically vice chair of the Local Access Forum, but I don't think his wife was an advocate of increased access.
Changed lifestyles have reduced usage of our historic routes, and I believe the formalisation of the ROW network through the definitive map, whilst designed to protect ROW, may actually through it's establishment have fueled the attitudes we can see from some landowners and certainly that promoted by the CLA.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 17:17:13, 19/10/20
Equally BWW - a few bad apples?  To return to the question I asked - how many landowners are even members of the CLA?  I could not find out from their website.  Even amongst those that are - how many are just members to use the CLA services rather than to campaign for special interests and, in paticualr, how many of them take any interest in the CLA view on ROWs?  I realise they are a lobby group but they do not mandate the conduct of landowners.  They are a special interest group much as the Ramblers are a lobby group for walkers.  Within it, I am sure there are many who realise the economic benefits of opening up the countryside to visitors - I suspect many of them are members of the community they live in, rather than remote corporations, and behave accordingly

I am beginning to sound like an apologist for the landed classes but all I am trying to say that many of them are not as evil as you are trying to portray them.  Most of the access problems I have had over the years seem to have been with the newly arrived property owner trying to stake their claim  rather from the big estates.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 17:20:22, 19/10/20
..................  Changed lifestyles have reduced usage of our historic routes, and I believe the formalisation of the ROW network through the definitive map, whilst designed to protect ROW, may actually through it's establishment have fueled the attitudes we can see from some landowners and certainly that promoted by the CLA.
  Good point - wish I had thought of it.  Formalising things is not always a good idea, it removes the useful grey areas.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 18:25:04, 19/10/20
Having served on the NFU I am away how far this lobby group is heard in the corridors of power. It is frustrating when when walkers seem not to realise just how powerful a lobby group the CLA is,m since the loss of many hereditary peers in the 1990's the CLA has promoted a very active grass routes membership, their aim is to have coast to coast membership throughout the country.


Their access aims are purely selfish, ironically they do not see the access network as an asset that creates opportunities in the rural communities they claim to represent. They rely strongly on the image of integrity, yet the dishonesty of the access history is still kept largely out of the public eye. The strongest arguments for improved access, IMO, is to drive an intellectual wedge between the CLA and the NFU. The CLA's drive for membership has been largely been at the expense of NFU membership, which is important if we are to have a strong agriculture to produce the quality of food this country needs.
If land owners were to admit among'st themselves that the reason we have RoWs is because of their historic reluctance to grant access and Andies is right
I think the answer to BWW's question may be in the law of trespass, which requires there to have been some damage.
If there was none I suspect in times of old before the definitive map and the concept of right of way that we have today there was an acceptance that people were able to take a sensible route to their destination if only to avoid some mud.Changed lifestyles have reduced usage of our historic routes, and I believe the formalisation of the ROW network through the definitive map, whilst designed to protect ROW, may actually through it's establishment have fueled the attitudes we can see from some landowners and certainly that promoted by the CLA.
Unfortunately being a sole critic of the landed classes seems to have made by judgements rather extreme, but as no commentaries have come out about the CLA's 2012 Policy this extreme view has been rather forced on me and I have personally plenty of examples to support this point of view.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: shortwalker on 18:57:42, 19/10/20
I do not agree with the way BWW goes on about the "landed gentry" but have any of you seen this.


https://www.cla.org.uk/rural-organisations-join-forces-proposal-amendment-highways-act-1980


In case you don't want to read the article they basically want to be able to "temporarily" close ROW's if cattle are present.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 19:02:35, 19/10/20
I do not agree with the way BWW goes on about the "landed gentry" but have any of you seen this.


https://www.cla.org.uk/rural-organisations-join-forces-proposal-amendment-highways-act-1980 (https://www.cla.org.uk/rural-organisations-join-forces-proposal-amendment-highways-act-1980)


In case you don't want to read the article they basically want to be able to "temporarily" close ROW's if cattle are present.
I think they use the word "divert" rather "close" which would find favour with the cow avoiding lobby.  IIRC this proposal started from the NFU.  It is the thin end of the wedge though.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: pdstsp on 19:24:41, 19/10/20
Agreed, thin end of the wedge.  I treat anything coming out of the CLA as self-interst driven.  I wonder how quickly they would all reinstate ROWs when livestock had been moved Off?
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:08:28, 20/10/20
I do not agree with the way BWW goes on about the "landed gentry" but have any of you seen this.


https://www.cla.org.uk/rural-organisations-join-forces-proposal-amendment-highways-act-1980 (https://www.cla.org.uk/rural-organisations-join-forces-proposal-amendment-highways-act-1980)


In case you don't want to read the article they basically want to be able to "temporarily" close ROW's if cattle are present.
I think this article is the CLA equivalent of a report in the British Farmer from last March I posted;
The means of providing alternative ways should have been thought up 50 years ago when the traditional beef and dairy breeds of the UK were being increased by continental breeds.
From last March;(https://i.ibb.co/BBzP6sj/forging-new-path.jpg)
IMO too late and too little discussion on the ways and means of implementation. As usual the blame is firmly in the person of the landowner, they have persuaded the NFU that they deal with matters of Land Management and the NFU is responsible for production matters. The reluctance to admit that any alternative ways other than those RoWs established by the 1949 Act has been ignored.

There is no mention of any safety recognition in the CLA policy on access published in 2012 and heralded as common sense. How much common sense can be contained in a document that is not based on any proper research of history and modern day trends.

The policy is the right way forward, but I agree with PDSTSP treat anything tha comes from the CLA as self interest driven. Ninthace is right to draw attention to the word 'divert', but if voluntary safety codes had been published 30 or 40 years ago this could have been done with out recourse to law change. By pointing out the alternative way and making it viable the farmer would have been showing showing a voluntary safe alternative, therefore absolving any H&S liability.
The CLA have been paranoid about forming permissive ways since the 2000 CRoW act. I think the origination of this has come from the NFU lobby, how the law is written needs to be watched as CLA come with self interest driven by individual selfish attitudes.


Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Andies on 14:48:07, 21/10/20
This discussion and indeed others herein have got me thinking about what it is that shapes the thinking of landowners towards access?
I think it maybe fear of the unknown. In years gone by the landowner would probably know all the locals, employ many of them, even house some, and would know what they did and why they were going where they were. There was nothing to worry about aside from an odd rogue who would be known by all as such. Strangers would stand out and an eye kept thereon. Hence I suspect there was less concern if any about someone taking a shortcut to reach the pub, church or shops. Trespass wasn't an issue aside from some poaching.
Move forward to today. Rural communities with little employment in agriculture, workers traveling to nearby towns, local shops closed, churches little used and village life all but gone in a community sense.
The result is landowners potentially divorced from the people living nearby, and now seeing those on little used rights of way as strangers, someone to be watched, a potential threat. Consequently many would rather we weren't there at all.
It doesn't have to be that way of course. By way of personal example: a sparsely populated rural parish a couple of miles from me is largely owned by one landowner and has a wealth of good walking on rights of ways. We have walked this area for many years and from an initial acknowledgement from a passing watchful landrover to a brief conversation with the landowner  about what we were doing and where we were from, progressed to friendly greetings and conversations over the years. Eventually to the point that I asked and was given permission to cut pea sticks for my allotment from one of the landowners woods. We had gone from being strangers marching across his fields up to goodness knows what to being no threat at all. Indeed I am quite sure if I asked him the landowner would probably let me walk anywhere on his farmland.
Compare this to a couple of landowners in another local village I approached about a mile long dead end footpath that crossed their land. I asked about a possible rerouting in exchange for a 400 yard extension to allow an onward continuation of way that obviously historically existed. The first landowner responded but only to say they had discussed it but no. In this case the landowner was also a district councillor so was engaged with the community. The other landowner, notorious for being anti access to the point of threatening and who plays no part in the community never even responded if even to just tell me to go away.
I think the conclusion I have reached that it is only through engagement with landowners either personally or by membership bodies can we reassure them that we aren't out there up to no good, but rather that we are an asset. More responsible eyes and ears on the look out for those that are really up to no good.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:20:13, 22/10/20
A thoughtful post, Andies, I too, Shortwalker disputes many of my posts because of;
I do not agree with the way BWW goes on about the "landed gentry".
But it is not the individual I go on about it is the corporate identity as illustrated by the examples of individuals.


Some years ago a rights of way officer suggested I read 'This Land Our Land' by Marion Shoard. The book drew my attention to the dependency of landowners on social status, in the past this went hand in hand with quantity of land and titles, it was supported by the level of employment land provided.


Today we have moved away from much of this social strata, very few countryside dwellings are now occupied by those dependent on agriculture, as you rightly say, yet the respect expected by the landowner is reflected by their corporate reluctance to recognise the asset value to the country of access to the countryside.
I think the conclusion I have reached that it is only through engagement with landowners either personally or by membership bodies can we reassure them that we aren't out there up to no good, but rather that we are an asset. More responsible eyes and ears on the look out for those that are really up to no good.

Do we have to reassure them? Should they not reassure us that they are spending the grants they receive properly, should they not be trying to earn respect rather than to expect it? Your examples of latter form of landowner reflect the very principle of landownership being promoted by Sarah Slade the CLA's legal advisor for access.


If landowner's feel threatened by access from criminal activity they are assuming that all visitors are criminals, if I am automatically assumed to be a wrong doer I do not feel inclined to buy produce from someone holding such discriminatory views. Nearly every criminal activity that threatens the countryside and it's dwellers would be controlled by socially responsible witnessing, yet the idea that the large majority law abiding people that access might introduce are not held in respect.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 12:29:01, 22/10/20
I have to agree with Andies analysis.  In the last 10 years I can only reacall 3 "bad" experiences.  One was a keeper, not the owner, who pointed out I was trespassing and asked me to leave (he was right - I was trying to shortcut through a small island of private land surrounded by Open Acess Land).  The second was a householder who had set up his own illegal diversion round his property and inisted I used it.
On the other hand, I have lost count of the number of times I have been greeted and held friendly conversations with property owners, tenants and employees.  I have alluded to this before but I think the outstanding experience was hopping over a stile into somebody's garden virtually landing on the owner.  I apologised for the intrusion but he said he was grateful to see me - I was the first person he had had a chance to talk to for ages.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:12:16, 22/10/20
Similarly I have had many more friendly conversations in the countryside than confrontation. Actually confrontations are few, yet you only have to read between the lines of corporate policy to find the real intentions.

I had many friendly conversations with the landowner of over 2000 acres south of the Longmynd, Shropshire, who evicted me off the LAF, when he became chairman. There is a disused railway line that runs through the estate his family has owned since Domesday (Literally). It links Craven Arms to Bishop's Castle and could have taken a lot of the cyclist pressure off local ways that has caused ongoing trouble in the area. The public way that was opened up stops abruptly at his land. He also has an Iron Age fort within his land called Billing's Ring, access to which would not occur within his lifetime (his own words to me), it is a recognized tump or hump and there are description on line from those, who have bagged it. I showed lack of respect by suggesting that such objectives were the learning ground for young walkers, unable to reach the more remote objectives of older peak baggers.

Andies posts always show good sense and it is important to try to understand how landowners think. All editorial from that quarter is scrupulous in the acceptance of the status quo, but it stops as abruptly as the Craven Arms rail line way did at a landowners boundary despite a few being in favour of the overall idea.

It is quite clear to me from many of my conversations with farmers and landowners that the publications of Sarah Slade's policies on access and other editorial behind the closed doors of internal publications has put a firm stop on any progressive growth of access for both safety and reaching new destinations.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Andies on 15:55:25, 23/10/20
I fear that this discussion may like a number of others on the forum now have run it's course. The usual contributors by large in agreement, but what if anything do we take forward from this?
I have no doubt that others, as I hope I do, make some impact on access by our actions, be that by engaging in both direct intervention on issues we come across and also the more general promotion of access in the manner of our conduct. But how much difference will we as individuals make and doesn't it require a more coordinated approach by groups representing access such as the Ramblers?
Is it not time for them to sit down with others such as the CLA and find a way forward that benefits all, and in so doing addresses the misunderstandings of the past?
Perhaps I am getting into the realms of fantasy here but surely this is the way intelligent people proceed?

Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Eyelet on 19:09:53, 23/10/20
The Ramblers Association have a current position on this issue, (but probably not yet on the new CLA et al proposal): https://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/england/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-and-cattle.aspx (https://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/england/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-and-cattle.aspx)


The RA Policy team can be contacted by email at: [email protected]
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 19:48:35, 23/10/20
I fear that this discussion may like a number of others on the forum now have run it's course. The usual contributors by large in agreement, but what if anything do we take forward from this?
Perhaps I am getting into the realms of fantasy here but surely this is the way intelligent people proceed?
Only if we cannot see a way of increasing the language we use to talk about these issues.

Did our ancestors Trespass when they created the footpath network we walk today?

(https://i.ibb.co/HDsZDLf/Map-fp-anom1.png)


Am I right in thinking, 'If we look at how our rights of way came into being, we might learn how to refute some of those assumptions used by those opposed to opening up our countryside'.
Is the footpath from Sidnal N to Cross House S an anomaly or is there a logical, historical explanation?
I believe that there is a sound historical reason for the above anomally, yet walkers fall themselves to come up with the easy answers to dismiss this, just as the landowners use simple poorly reasoned instances to pedal their interpretations of the reason people walked through our countryside.

Andies has opened a post about the Ramblers, perhaps they should be listening more to the ideas discussed outside of their membership. If they encouraged a critical approach of the  established landowner ideas, perhaps the weakness of the long held beliefs might start to be exposed.


Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Jac on 14:42:23, 24/10/20
Andies has opened a post about the Ramblers, perhaps they should be listening more to the ideas discussed outside of their membership.

Perhaps, though members might justifiably expect a more listening ear and consequently more action/results ???
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: Andies on 15:11:03, 24/10/20
Perhaps, though members might justifiably expect a more listening ear and consequently more action/results ???
Yes indeed, this is exactly my point O0
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:59:28, 26/10/20
Perhaps, though members might justifiably expect a more listening ear and consequently more action/results ???
Not too sure, who should be listening to who. Last suggestion I sent to our county council's Great Outdoors liaison Group, where a lost way should have been considered as justifiable cause to have a right of way considered over a farm service bridge. The two rambler members meekly accepted the bureaucratic explanation, never uttered a word although I had made a case that supported extensive increase to access and commercial benefits to tourism. I don't think they had even read the question published in the minutes, passed it up for advice (within the rambler's) prior to the meeting or even understood any deeper meaning in the facts laid out.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:06:57, 29/10/22
Recently discussed this phenomenon elsewhere;
The Offset Path effect is a phenomenon found more on old maps, though some have been transferred to the OS maps, as explained to me by a RoW Officer as a slip of the Definitive Map!! Yet the real explanation lies in the micro geography of the locations. This is an example; Near Nescliff in Shropshire, Starting from the road in Kynaston, ending SJ 35826 20078. There is no apparent reason as the lane is level with fields and has a hard surface. You have to imagine a time when hardcore was not easily transported and a heavy clay topsoil had been cut down to the bedrock below the level of the water table. Take into account the footfall of the overall pedestrian way is indicated by the destination and the gathering power of the way then the level of public pressure will create an offset pavement effect.

It can be viewed on Google Earth by pasting: 52.77445, -2.95272  The footpath is in the field parallel to the lane and is supported by the walk furniture and waymarks. It was explained to me by the council as an anomaly due to inaccurate surveying but the early OS maps are too often very precise about the detail of how the offset path deviates from the road.

An interesting point about this example is it lies exactly on a line drawn from the mouth of the Tanat Valley exiting Wales and the end of the Sandstone escarpment at Nescliff, showing the point of joining the A5 route to London.


Link for streetmap; https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map?x=335826&y=320078&z=0&sv=SJ3582620078&st=5&mapp=map&searchp=ids (https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map?x=335826&y=320078&z=0&sv=SJ3582620078&st=5&mapp=map&searchp=ids) click the next bar above on the zoom control for 1:25k OS map.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: RamblingG on 17:07:05, 30/10/22
I cannot speak for the accuracy of the surveyors but the map makers are a bit liberal with reality.  A couple examples just from yesterday.
The red trace in the image below is from my gps which is pretty reliable.  Compare the trace with the path shown. The path from the start, is shown running along inside the edge of the wood, which is correct and my trace shows where the line of the path actually is, which means boundary of the wood is wrong.  The path emegres from the wood around the second green diamond.  It then drops left back into the woodland but leaves again immediately after crossing the stream, as per the trace, rather than continuing in the wood as the OS would have it.(https://i.ibb.co/gFvqyCv/2020-09-22-3.png) (https://ibb.co/jZV0hFV)

In the second example, the PROW path rejoins the road where my trace shows it does, not where the OS says it does, and there is a gate in a wall to prove it.(https://i.ibb.co/C7yVSZg/2020-09-22-4.png) (https://ibb.co/Phy1VnK)

I had a look on GoogleEarth at your path.  While there is a line of gates parallel to the road there is no weakness in the hedge at the S end.  The old railings buried in the hedge are in the wrong place, i.e. on the wrong road to be an overgrown exit and why on earth would you have a footpath parallel to a perfectly good lane.  Mayhap the lane was once a trackway that served as a footpath before it was metalled.  I prefer the clerical error theory, perhaps it was plotted in the wrong place and assumed to be parallel route.


The real question on the top picture is why did you walk around in a little triangle shape just above the contour line?
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 17:32:46, 30/10/22
Probably waiting for SWMBO to catch up.  😉
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:54:12, 31/10/22
The offset footpath seems to be a very strong sign that the force of public footfall has overcome the concept of private land. In all the locations I have found they combine with heavy land and poor drainage. Today it may be unnecessary to transfer to the field so a quagmire in the road needs to be avoided yet, yet white van drivers, home deliveries and high hedges have made the country lanes of yesteryear a different experience.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 12:42:21, 31/10/22
Devon has a surfeit of narrow lanes and delivery drivers.  Unfortunately, we seem to have a dearth of offset paths on account of a phenomenon called a Devon Hedge
https://www.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment/land-management/hedges-and-the-historic-environment/
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:57:50, 31/10/22
Not a county I would expect to find them. Shropshire's locations are areas of heavy soil, low-lying ground on boulder clay and the extension of the ways have west lead to cattle and sheep-producing areas. The potential weight of cloven foot traffic extends many miles. The real footfall today would come in reversing the expected direction of travel from Midland suburbia.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: barewirewalker on 15:00:15, 02/11/22
Last week we ventured out to visit a few crabapple trees. Return along a lane that once would have earned the title Green Lane, which had degenerated into a dark mud-filled ditch totally caused by neglected hedges and the placing of an enormous industrial scale midden at the top of the incline shared by the track, I notice a shop bought Privacy Notice newly adorning a bit of sheep netting at the field level of the sunken track. Had someone climbed the bank to escape toxic mud that would rot a pair of fabric boots in a quarter of a mile, surely not? Yet the only obvious destination 300yds along the hedge line was a field gate that gave an offset, firm footway to avoid the excrement-filled ditch, designated a Public Right of Way.

Was it the farmer or landowner that rushed hotfoot to the local source of rural accoutrements so this desperate scabbling could be marked with recognition?
 
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: BuzyG on 00:27:14, 05/11/22
Did our ancestors Trespass when they created the footpath network we walk today?

Am I right in thinking, 'If we look at how our rights of way came into being, we might learn how to refute some of those assumptions used by those opposed to opening up our countryside'.
Is the footpath from Sidnal N to Cross House S an anomaly or is there a logical, historical explanation?


Depends which came first. The path on the ground or the law of trespass ?
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: ninthace on 07:42:26, 05/11/22

Depends which came first. The path on the ground or the law of trespass ?


Much of our network is a legacy of the time people walked out of necessity to get from A to B so the paths would have existed before the enclosures.  Those that grew subsequently would have been necessary to get to the “big house, farms or church so would have been accepted.  So on balance, I reckon mostly they didn’t trespass.
Title: Re: Did they Trespass...or not
Post by: shortwalker on 17:55:04, 05/11/22
If we are honest we all trespass at some time or another. Be it intentionally or by mistake.  How much of an issue it creates  varies  from location to location.


One my regular routes takes me along a river bank it is the route everyone uses, but the actual PROW moves away from the river before moving back to it. Never an issue and the farmer has even put in a couple of style to accommodate it.